On 06-Jun-26 10:27, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Fri, Jun 5, 2026 at 3:08 PM John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 6 Jun 2026, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 06-Jun-26 06:17, John R Levine wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Jun 2026, Jay Daley wrote:
>>> This is based on the assumption that AI produces slop. In my
experience
>>> the more effort you put into it, the better the quality of output. It
>>> will not be too long before many, many people can instruct AI well
enough
>>> to produce high quality output.
>>
>> That's a reasonable point, but with a prompt that detailed, would the AI
>> output now be a derivative of the prompt and/or the training? Who
knows?
>>
>> Still think it's fine to ask people to volunteer info about their AI use
>> but premature to change anything based on it.
>
> Nothing in any version of the draft suggests changing anything, except
> requiring disclosure. I don't really understand why that is regarded as
> undesirable or onerous.
It's intrusive, vague and unenforcable. How much AI do I have to use
before I have to disclose? If I lie, what are the penalties? Who is
going to enforce it? Do they know they've signed up to do that?
I agree with the points John makes here. More broadly, it's your
burden to make the case for this requirement, not the other way around.
My case is that I think readers want to know this. Of course I could be wrong,
and that's why it needs testing on more than the people here.
Maybe the RSWG chairs could step in...
Brian
--
rswg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
